Inquiry-Based Learning: A Review of the Research Literature

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW

Inquiry-Based Learning:

A Review of the Research Literature

Dr. Sharon Friesen

Galileo Educational Network, University of Calgary

David Scott

University of Calgary

Paper prepared for the Alberta Ministry of Education

June 2013

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Introduction

A growing body of research suggests that models of education designed to

meet the needs of the industrial past are inadequate for the myriad challenges and

opportunities facing 21st century students (Alberta Education, 2010; Barron &

Darling-Hammond, 2008; Friesen & Jardine, 2009; Perkins, 2009). New educational

environments require different ways of designing learning experiences for students as

well as new approaches to teaching and assessment. The call for educational reform

away from passive transmission-based learning and the imparting of discrete skills

and processes is not new. Institutions of education around the world are reconsidering

some of their most deeply-held assumptions about how they conceptualize learning

and to what end education should be directed.

This shift in thinking has been prominent in Alberta. Subject-specific

programs of study and the Ministry of Education’s Inspiring Education (2010)

document to guide education in Alberta to 2030 call for a vision of education that will

prepare young people for the shifting economic, technological, and socio-political

realities of the 21st century. Through fostering intellectual engagement, an

entrepreneurial spirit, and the dispositions of ethical citizenship, the vision for

education outlined in the Inspiring Education document advocates that students

develop competencies through a process of inquiry and discovery. Students would

collaborate to create new knowledge while also learning how to “think critically and

creatively, and how to make discoveries—through inquiry, reflection, exploration,

experimentation, and trial and error” (Alberta Education, 2010, p. 19).

At the heart of the vision for education articulated in the Inspiring Education

document is an emphasis on engaging students in genuine knowledge creation and

authentic inquiry. This orientation towards learning is part of a long historical

tradition in the West. In particular it draws inspiration from Socrates’ questioning

method in Ancient Greece and from work on inquiry by the educational thinker John

Dewey in the early part of the 20th century. Newly emerging insights and empirical

findings in the learning sciences suggest that traditional approaches to education that

emphasize the ability to recall disconnected facts and follow prescribed sets of rules

and operations should be replaced by “learning that enables critical thinking, flexible

problem solving, and the transfer of skills and use of knowledge in new situations”

(Darling-Hammond, 2008, p. 2). Within this frame, rather than learning about a field

of knowledge (i.e., facts and definitions) or learning elements and pieces of a field

(i.e., procedures and rules), Perkins (2009) argues that students should be given

opportunities to “play the whole game” (p. 25) where they can experience junior

versions of how knowledge is created and communicated within specific disciplines.

Contemporary educational researchers promote a myriad of conceptual models

and approaches falling under the banner of inquiry-based learning and genuine

knowledge creation. Although these approaches possess similarities, they rely on

differing definitions of and pedagogical orientations to engaging students in this kind

of work. To better inform the choice of practices and orientations to realize the vision

for education articulated in the Inspiring Education document we offer a review of the

literature on inquiry-based learning. Drawing on the theory and research in the field,

we provide insight into the efficacy of particular approaches to inquiry in terms of

their impact on student learning, achievement, and engagement. We draw on this


same body of literature, along with our own analysis, to outline the strengths and

weaknesses of particular orientations to inquiry.

Inquiry-based learning in Alberta

Within the curricular landscape of education, the term inquiry has become a

central part of mission statements, general outcomes, and program strands in

jurisdictions across Canada and the United States. In Alberta most of the major

subject-specific curriculum documents contain the term inquiry and it holds a central

place in both the science and social studies programs of study. For example, the

Alberta social studies program states that social studies is “an issues focused and

inquiry-based interdisciplinary subject” (Alberta Education, 2007, p. 1) where

students “construct meaning in the context of their lived experience through active

inquiry and engagement with their school and community” (p. 5). Similarly, one of

the core foundations of the Alberta science program (Alberta Education, 2006)

involves helping students “develop the skills required for scientific and technological

inquiry, for solving problems, for communicating scientific ideas and results, for

working collaboratively and for making informed decisions” (p. 3). Although the

term inquiry is less prominent in the language arts program, the math program

explicitly calls for students to use organizational processes and tools to manage and

plan for inquiry (Alberta Education, 2007). In contrast to traditional transmission-

based approaches to education where the teacher is the primary holder of expert

knowledge and the students are positioned as passive receptors of this information,

programs of study in Alberta emphasize active, student-centered, and discipline-based

inquiry.

The Ministry of Education recently solidified its commitment to inquiry-based

learning by releasing Inspiring Education (Alberta Education, 2010), which sets out a

long-term vision for education in the province as well as a broad policy framework to

2030. Based on extended feedback from the public and organized around the notion

that we need to prepare kids for their future and not our past, Inspiring Education

calls for education to be transformed around several key principles. These principles

include the three E’s of 21st century education:

Engaged Thinker: who thinks critically and makes discoveries; who uses

technology to learn, innovate, communicate, and discover; who works with

multiple perspectives and disciplines to identify problems and find the best

solutions; who communicates these ideas to others; and who, as a life-long

learner, adapts to change with an attitude of optimism and hope for the future.

Ethical Citizen: who builds relationships based on humility, fairness and open-

mindedness; who demonstrates respect, empathy and compassion; and who

through teamwork, collaboration and communication contributes fully to the

community and the world.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: who creates opportunities and achieves goals through

hard work, perseverance and discipline; who strives for excellence and earns

success; who explores ideas and challenges the status quo; who is competitive,

adaptable and resilient; and who has the confidence to take risks and make

bold decisions in the face of adversity. (pp. 5-6)


As education in Alberta is organized around the three E’s of 21st century

learning, a shift will occur from disseminating information and recalling facts toward

developing particular competencies. Teachers will cultivate the natural curiosities of

students and plant the seeds of life-long learning. Students will be invited to

collaborate in order to create new knowledge while also learning how to “think

critically and creatively, and how to make discoveries—through inquiry, reflection,

exploration, experimentation, and trial and error” (Alberta Education, 2010, p. 19). In

moving away from an education system focused on delivering content to one

emphasizing a process of inquiry and discovery, students will continue to study core

subjects such as language arts and mathematics. However, these subjects will involve

an interdisciplinary exploration of topics that integrates a wider range of subjects,

including the arts.

To support student innovation and discovery, Inspiring Education calls for

Alberta educators to integrate powerful technology seamlessly into the learning

process. It will not be enough simply to introduce new technologies into the

classroom to support a single flow of information where, for example, students use

the Internet primarily to retrieve information or watch a video. Rather, Inspiring

Education promotes transformative uses of technology to prepare young people to

flourish in a knowledge-based society. This includes using digital networking

platforms to allow students to interact with experts in various fields as well as to

collaborate with their peers to create, share, and exchange knowledge and ideas.

Students will use a range of applications to communicate their findings in imaginative

ways to audiences beyond the school.

This emphasis on knowledge creation and elaborated communication will

require new approaches to assessment. Rather than focusing on students’ ability to

recall content or follow basic procedures, these new forms of assessment will require

more sophisticated performances of deep understanding. This will include asking

students to solve real-world problems and participate in tasks reflective of work

engaged by professionals in particular disciplines. While traditional forms of

summative assessment often demand one right solution or response, these more

sophisticated performances of key competencies will require qualitative evaluation of

student work. Formative feedback loops that provide ongoing descriptive feedback

will help students enhance works in progress. This renewed focus on formative

assessment will help teachers modify their teaching to help students produce

sophisticated and high-quality summative performances of understanding.

Review Methods

To support the vision of education outlined in Inspiring Education, this article

offers a review of the theory and research documenting the nature and efficacy of

approaches to education that seek to engage students in inquiry-based learning,

authentic intellectual work, and knowledge creation. We identify a wide range of

definitional understandings of what it means to engage students in inquiry-based

learning and knowledge creation. In relation to each approach we provide a synthesis

and summary of the results of the most contemporary empirical research on the

impact of specific approaches on student learning.


Selection Criteria

We examined a range of sources, including research articles and reports,

conceptual articles, and books. These are our selection criteria:

Robust research that included both qualitative and qualitative methodologies.

Reports, articles, and books written by academics and/or professional

organizations known nationally and/or internationally within the scholarly

community.

Literature published internationally, nationally, and provincially.

Literature published within the past ten years was prioritized.

Search Procedure

From the end of March to May 2013 we searched published academic and

professional scholarship using search words that included authentic intellectual work,

inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, and design-

based learning. We used the following search strategies:

Manual searches of relevant journals, published research reports, and books.

Electronic searches on the following databases: Academic Search Complete,

CBCA Education, ERIC, Google Scholar, Education Research Complete,

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and WorldCat.

Internet searches using Google search engine.

To augment these data sources, we scoured the reference lists of relevant articles and

books for additional research that aligned with our search criteria.

Analysis

We used a shared drop box to gather resources and create a reference list of

strategic literature. To verify and validate key concepts and information that we

brought forward during our review of the literature, we posted the first draft of this

article in a Google doc. This enabled both authors to undertake multiple readings and

co-readings of this document to provide ongoing critical feedback and commentary.

The authors met bi-monthly staring at the beginning of March 2013 to verify and

validate the emerging synthesis of the research presented in this review of the

literature.

Placing Inquiry-based Education in a Historical Context

It is important to appreciate the place of inquiry in a historical context both in

terms of the long Western tradition of knowledge creation and inquiry and in terms of

the ways traditional approaches to education have hindered efforts to organize

education towards these ends. Forces in the world today are simultaneously

challenging traditional notions of education and pushing jurisdictions of education

around the world to change how they think about and organize education.

Recovering the Ancestry of Inquiry-Based Learning

Socrates. The vision for education outlined in Alberta Education’s (2010)

Inspiring Education emphasizing inquiry-based learning has a long ancestry in the


West. This spirit of inquiry has a strong historical antecedent in Ancient Greece and

the questioning method employed by Socrates when engaging in dialogue with his

interlocutors. Starting with the notion that the only thing he knew was he knew

nothing, Socrates would engage in a systematic and disciplined questioning process to

discover basic truths about the inner workings of the natural world and ethical

questions related to such enduring concerns as the nature of justice. By posing such

seemingly simple questions as What is justice? Socrates showed that many

commonly-held assumptions were flawed and even illogical. Socratic inquiry cannot

be seen as teaching in any traditional sense involving transmitting knowledge from

someone who is more knowledgeable to those who possess less knowledge. The

teacher here is not the ‘sage on the stage’ with the student positioned as a passive

receptor of information. However, neither is a teacher engaged in Socratic dialogue a

‘guide on the side.’ Ross (2003) wrote that “in the Socratic method, the classroom

experience is a shared dialogue between teacher and students in which both are

responsible for pushing the dialogue forward through questioning” (p. 1). In this

understanding of inquiry, both the teacher and the student ask probing questions

meant to clarify the basic assumptions underpinning a truth claim or the logical

consequences of a particular thought.

Understanding the Socratic tradition helps us recover several elements that

seem to be missing in how some people understand inquiry-based learning. The

Socratic tradition does not involve giving students free rein over the topic they wish to

explore with minimal guidance from the teacher. Rather, the Socratic method creates

a space where teacher and student are in dialogue to pursue answers to questions that

are worth thinking about deeply. Just as Inspiring Education focuses on ethical

citizenship, Socrates did not seek knowledge for its own sake. For Socrates the

unexamined life was not worth living. The good life involved seeking knowledge as a

means to living more ethically and consciously in the world. Inquiry was not done

sporadically or as a mechanical step-by-step formal method; it was a way of living

ethically in the world.

The Middle Ages and the Renaissance. While this spirit of inquiry within

the Western tradition may have emerged in Ancient Greece, the term itself can be

traced back to the middle of the 13th century through the Latin word inquīrere, which

literally means “to seek for.” The spirit of seeking answers to the mysteries of the

universe based not on established tradition or superstition but on observation,

experimentation, and empirical verification, gained momentum during the early

1500’s in Northern Italy. Key Renaissance figures such as Galileo Galilei and

Leonardo da Vinci were emblematic of a quest for knowledge that spread to the rest

of Europe in the late 16th century spurred on through the creation of new technologies,

eg. microscope, telescope, printing press, etc. This spirit of inquiry and scientific

discovery took hold on a wider scale during the European Enlightenment beginning in

the 18th century.

Dewey. In the modern era, these historical threads of inquiry found a home in

the work of John Dewey in the early part of the 20th century. As one of the key

leaders of the progressive movement in education, Dewey, who had worked as a

science teacher, encouraged K–12 teachers to use inquiry as the primary teaching

strategy in their science classrooms. Modeled on the scientific method, the particular

process of inquiry Dewey (1910) advocated involved “sensing perplexing situations,


clarifying the problem, formulating a tentative hypothesis, testing the hypothesis,

revising with rigorous tests, and acting on the solution” (Barrow, 2006, p. 266).

Dewey was critical of transmission-based pedagogies that emphasized acquiring facts

at the expense of fostering modes of thinking and attitudes of the mind related to the

ways scientific knowledge is created.

As Dewey’s thinking on education evolved, he broadened the scope of topics

and subjects in which to engage students with inquiry. Dewey (1938) encouraged

students to formulate problems related to their own experiences and augment their

emerging understandings with their personal knowledge. Dewey believed that the

teacher should not simply stand in front of the class and transmit information to be

passively absorbed by students. Instead, students must be actively involved in the

learning process and given a degree of control over what they are learning. The

teacher's role should be that of facilitator and guide. It is important to emphasize that

this process did not involve anything-goes, free-for-all exploration; it was to be

guided by empirical approaches to knowledge creation.

From a curricular perspective, Dewey, like Socrates, believed that active

inquiry should be used not only to gain knowledge and particular dispositions, but

also to learn how to live. Dewey (1944) felt that the purpose of education was to help

students realize their full potential, to strengthen democracy, and to promote the

common good. Inspiring Education contains similar language of ethical citizenship;

learning not only prepares the young to make their way as individuals in the world,

but it also helps them to become advocates for positive social change. Much of the

higher purpose and democratic spirit of Dewey’s vision for education animates

Alberta Education’s vision for education towards 2030.

Traditional Approaches to Education

The factory model. Although Dewey’s pioneering work was realized in some

experimental schools and in exemplary classrooms, on a systemic level his inquiry

approach to education ran counter to prevailing views about education that sought to

prepare young people for an industrial society. As outlined by Friesen and Jardine

(2009), for young people to take their place in industrial enterprises or within highly

stratified bureaucratic organizations, an education system was created that

emphasized following prescribed sets of rules and regurgitating content. Inspired by

the factory room floor, curriculum was conceptualized as a mass assembly line

delivering “those not-further-divisible ‘bits’ out of which any knowledge was

assembled” (p. 12). Underlying this model of education is a series of assumptions

about the nature of knowledge and knowing, the purpose of education, and the role of

the teacher in the classroom. Sawyer (2006) summarized these assumptions as

follows:

Knowledge is a collection of facts about the world and procedures for how to

solve problems.

The goal of schooling is to get these facts and procedures into the student’s

head.

Teachers know these facts and procedures and their job is to transmit them to

students.

Simpler facts and procedures should be learned first.


The way to determine the success of schooling is to test the students to see

how many facts and procedures they have acquired. (p. 1)

Within this framework, learning is understood to be a linear process of either

getting a pre-given body of content into the students’ heads or breaking down any

complex task into its basic parts and sequencing these in a way that can be assimilated

into the mind of the learner.

Elementis and aboutis. Perkins (2009) argued that this approach to teaching

any complex idea or skill, from historical inquiry to mathematical thinking, meant that

most students experienced learning in one of two ways:

1. Elements first. Ramp into complexity gradually by learning elements now and

putting them together later.

2. Learning about. Learn about something to start with, rather than learning to

do it. (pp. 3-4)

Perkins uses the metaphor of baseball to argue that the experience of most students in

school is one where they either learn isolated skills like throwing the ball or they learn

about baseball by studying statistics or the history of the game.

In what Perkins called elementis, students learn the elements of a discipline in

isolation, usually in the form of a prescribed set of rules and operations. For example,

in math students learn addition, then subtraction, followed by multiplication and

division. Although students are promised that eventually they will be able to put

these operations together to solve meaningful problems, often they are never given

this opportunity. Similarly, students study grammar with the “idea that the knowledge

will later coalesce into comprehensive, compelling, and of course correct written and

oral communications” (p. 4). However, students are not given the opportunity to

produce powerful pieces of writing intended for a real audience. Divorced from the

context in which a subject like math or writing lives in the world, students gain an

incomplete and fragmented understanding of these disciplines. Students often leave

school unable to perform tasks representative of the work undertaken by professionals

in the field.

History and science are most often taught using what Perkins (2009) termed

aboutis, where students learn about a topic or concept rather than learning how to take

part in the process of creating that knowledge. For example, in history students are

generally presented with an authoritative authorless series of facts about an era in the

form of a long list of names, dates, and developments. Students rarely have an

opportunity to take part in actual historical inquiry to learn how historians construct

knowledge about the past. This also occurs in science where students learn about, for

example, Newton’s laws or the steps involved in mitosis. However, Perkins notes, “a

huge body of research on science understanding demonstrates that learners show very

limited understanding, bedevilled by a range of misconceptions about what the ideas

really mean” (p. 6).

These assumptions have become so deeply ingrained in how we think about

education that ongoing attempts at educational reform often fail to question the


efficacy of organizing learning around elementis and aboutis. This can be seen in the

flipped classroom movement that is often held up as a paradigm shift that will

reinvent education. First popularized by Salmon Khan (2013), in the flipped

classroom students do not spend class time passively listening to a teacher lecture.

This part of instruction is assigned for homework through a video posted on-line (e.g.,

on YouTube or Vimeo). Students spend class time asking questions and receiving

one-on-one feedback and support for content, exercises, or problems they learned at

home. Although this model of education has much to offer and may be preferable to

many current practices where students spend a great deal of their time in school

listening to teachers talk, the flipped classroom leaves intact the core assumptions of

elementis and aboutis that underpin traditional models of education.

Three Developments that Challenge Traditional Approaches to Learning

While an educational focus on content delivery and discrete skills may have

been appropriate for the early part of the 20th century, we need new models of

education that reflect the modern economy, the rise of new technologies and digital

networks, and new advances in the learning sciences.

Moving from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy

From an economic perspective, Darling-Hammond (2008) notes that in the

early part of the 20th century 95% of jobs in the U.S. were low-skill manual labour

requiring the ability to follow basic procedures designed by external authorities. In

the early part of the 21st century these jobs make up only 10% of the total U.S.

economy. Darling-Hammond (2008) writes:

Most of today’s jobs require specialized knowledge and skills, including the

capacity to design and manage one’s own work, communicate effectively and

collaborate with others; research ideas; collect, synthesize, and analyze

information; develop new products; apply many bodies of knowledge to novel

problems that arise (p. 1).

In the past, when most jobs required manual labour, only a small elite needed to

possess abilities like these. Today the vast majority of the population needs these

competencies to flourish in an economy where there is “greater dependence on

knowledge, information and high skill levels, and the increasing need for ready access

to all of these by the business and public sectors” (OECD, 2005, p. 15).

The need for knowledge creators who possess high skill levels reflects an

economy driven by continual technological innovation. Many jobs that will be in

demand in the next two decades have not yet been created. This happened in the last

decade when the introduction of smart phones and tablets along with the proliferation

of social networking sites like Twitter led to a range of new jobs that did not exist as

recently as 2003. These jobs include social media managers and app developers. The

continually-evolving nature of the 21st century economy will require people who are

highly adaptable to change; what they know will be less important than what they are

able to do with that knowledge in different contexts. This knowledge-based economy

requires educational institutions to move beyond traditional approaches to education

that demand students work on “constrained tasks that emphasize memorization and


elicit responses that merely demonstrate recall or application of simple algorithms”

(Darling-Hammond, 2008, p. 12).

The rise of new technologies and digital networks

The rise of digital networks has led to an increase in the amount, level of

specialization, and diversity of information now available to the general public.

Anyone with an Internet connection can access a vast store of information on almost

any subject. Top universities such as Harvard and MIT now post on-line lectures by

leading scholars for the general public to access. In this environment it no longer

makes sense for a teacher or a textbook to be the sole holder of knowledge. Digital

networks provide opportunities to break down the walls of the school and provide

students with new possibilities for gathering information and accessing experts.

However, as Inspiring Education notes, digital networks have evolved in way

where they do not just support a single flow of information from expert to novice.

When teachers simply graft new technologies onto traditional approaches to

education, students might use the Internet only retrieve information or watch videos.

As Friesen and Lock (2010) outline in detail, technological advancements allow

students to work collaboratively with their peers to create, share, refine, and exchange

knowledge and ideas. They write:

Web 1.0 was dominated by browsers containing static screensfull of

information, with the user working in isolation. The second generation of the

Internet, Web 2.0 is different because it “it is more interactive, allowing users

to add and change context easily, to collaborate and communicate

instantaneously in order to share, develop, and distributed information, new

applications, and new ideas” (Scrhum & Levin, 2009, 183). With applications

such as wikis, blogs, voice threads, RSS feeds, social networking (e.g.,

MySpace, Facebook), and Google Apps, users can work online with multiple

users within a collaborative space. (p. 11)

Within this new landscape digital technologies will play an integral role in

supporting learning and knowledge-building activities (WNCP, 2011). Students will

be able to “engage collaboratively in idea improvement, problem solving, elaborated

forms of communication, consulting authoritative sources and knowledge

advancement as they undertake real problems, issues and questions” (p. 4). Emerging

technologies provide students with elaborated forms of communication such as

publishing and movie-making technologies. In the past these technologies were

expensive and only available to a small professional elite but they are now available

to a much wider population.

Advances in the learning sciences

When universal education was introduced in the early part of the 20th century,

it was assumed that learning about a field of study or breaking a field into discrete

elements was the most effective way to organize education. However, these beliefs

were never based on empirical evidence. New findings in the learning sciences are

challenging these assumptions. There is a growing consensus around the nature of

knowledge and knowing, the purpose of education, and how teachers can best


promote learning.

Knowledge has traditionally been seen as a collection of facts, a body of

content, or a list of processes or procedures to master. However, knowledge is now

“understood as organized in living, developing fields, changing and adapting in the

presence of new circumstances, new evidence and new discoveries” (WNCP, 2011, p.

3). Knowledge is not dead or inert. Instead, a subject of study is a “living place, a

living field of relations” (Jardine, Friesen, & Clifford, 2008, p. xi). Those who

understand knowledge as situated in a dynamic always-evolving living field cannot

study facts or procedures outside the field that created them. Research has shown that

people are limited in their ability to remember ideas and knowledge when they learn

in decontextualized environments (Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 2000, 2008). As a

result, isolated facts or procedures that are learned as repetitive drills have little

meaning and are soon discarded.

This view of knowledge suggests that students learn best when the subjects are

meaningful to them. Student tasks must have “an authenticity, [and a sense] that the

work being done in classrooms is ‘real work’ that reflects the living realities of the

discipline being taught” (WNCP, 2011). When students and teachers pose guiding

questions, problems, or tasks that professionals in the field would recognize as

important, they can work and learn from experts towards responses and performances

of learning that are meaningful, sophisticated, and powerful. This view of the nature

and purpose of learning is supported by a growing body of literature urging educators

to design curricula, teaching, and learning experiences where students have the

opportunity to “learn their way around a discipline” (Bransford, Brown & Cocking,

2000, p. 139) by engaging in authentic intellectual tasks and opportunities for genuine

knowledge creation (Darling-Hammond, 2008; Jardine, Friesen & Clifford, 2008;

OECD, 2008; Perkins, 2008; Sawyer, 2006). Educators advocating for this approach

argue that each discipline (e.g., science, mathematics, history) has its own particular

ways of generating knowledge, verifying what counts as quality work, and

communicating. The job of educators thus becomes to apprentice young people into

these practices.

In the past it was thought that students could not work within a living

discipline until they had learned all the facts, definitions, and procedures about the

field. Only once they reached the university level might they have opportunities to

engage in historical inquiry, mathematical thinking, or genuine scientific exploration.

Today, learning the way around a discipline is no longer for the few who move on in

their studies; it is also open to the young. For example, educators traditionally

believed that students needed to have a basic foundation of historical knowledge

before they could take part in genuine historical inquiry. Because of this belief,

studying history for most students involved passively and uncritically absorbing other

people’s facts about the past. In the present, students can work within the discipline

of history from an early age where they are given access to primary sources through

various technologies, to understand how historians make sense of the past. This

includes working with primary sources, and using methods of historical analysis and

argumentation (National Center For History in Schools, 1996). Rather than learning

about history, students are actually given the opportunity to do history. Perkins

(2008) calls this approach to education “playing the whole game” (p. 25) where

students are apprenticed into developmentally appropriate junior versions of the ways


professionals in a field engage, create knowledge, and communicate in their

discipline.

This shift in thinking about the nature and purpose of education calls for a

redefinition of commonly-used terms in educational discourse. For instance, rigour is

most often understood as imparting more sophisticated information to students.

However, for Rosenstock (2011), principal of High Tech High, a school devoted to

authentic discipline-based inquiry, rigour involves “being in the company of a

passionate adult who is rigorously pursing inquiry in the area of their subject matter

and is inviting students along as peers in that discourse” (2011). The key distinction

is between learning about a field of inquiry and taking on the ways of knowing of the

field of inquiry. Rosenstock wants kids “behaving like an actress, scientist,

documentary filmmaker, like a journalist. Not just studying it but being like it”

(2011).

Findings in the learning sciences, including neurology and cognitive science,

support an inquiry-based vision for education in the 21st century (Bransford, Brown &

Cocking, 2000; OECD, 2008; Sawyer, 2006; Davis, et al., 2008; WNCP, 2011). Deep

understanding comes from being immersed in a subject for a long period of time.

Superficial coverage of many topics does not help students develop competencies

because there is not enough time to learn anything in depth. Curriculum that is ‘a

mile wide and an inch deep’ does not allow learners to see connections among the

things they are learning. There must be a “sufficient number of cases of in-depth

study to allow students to grasp the defining concepts in specific domains within a

discipline” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 20).

This body of research also contends that for learning to occur people must not

be passive recipients. Rather, the learner must be actively involved in the learning

process. This is because “when we are simply exposed to events and information (as

opposed to acting on them), our brains and bodies are not much affected” (WNCP,

2011, p. 4). Long-term changes in neuronal structures and brain activity occur when

people are actively involved in shaping their learning experiences (OECD, 2007;

Davis, et al., 2000, 2008). Deep conceptual understanding involves actively adapting

and testing ideas, concepts, and processes within new contexts. Learning reflects the

capacity of more sophisticated, flexible, and creative action within novel

circumstances. Emerging insights from the learning sciences suggest that

predictable activities can actually ‘dumb you down,’ whereas participation in

unfamiliar structures that demand adaptation ––this is, places where learning

is required ––literally, can make you smarter (Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler,

2000, p. 76).

As Davis (2008) and colleagues outline, this does not mean there is no place

for some rote memorization. For example, skills such as decoding text and counting

“must become automatic and transparent before they can be used in the development

of more complex competencies” (p. 28). However, rote memorization if pursued

exclusively can lead to a form of learning that allows students to pass a test but not

gain the ability to use this knowledge in the development of more sophisticated

understandings or apply what they learned within realistic contexts. This phenomenon

seems to occur when learning takes place in decontextualized environments where


what is learned is isolated from the greater set of relations to which a skill or task is a

part. Insights from the learning sciences suggests that learning occurs when students

are given threshold experiences just beyond their abilities whereby they are asked to

apply what they have learned in realistic situations. As we will see providing rigorous

feedback and scaffolding must be an integral part of this process.

These insights into the circumstances in which learning occurs aligns with the

work of Sawyer (2006) who, supported by findings in the cognitive sciences, makes a

key distinction between approaches to education that promote deep learning versus

traditional practices that Papert (1993) calls “instructionism” (p. 137). Here is a

summary of the requirements for fostering deep learning versus instructionism:

Learning Knowledge Deeply

(Findings from Cognitive Science)

Traditional Practices

(Instructionism)

Deep learning requires that learners relate

new ideas and concepts to previous

knowledge and experience.

Learners treat course material as

unrelated to what they already know.

Deep learning requires that learners

integrate their knowledge into interrelated

conceptual systems.

Learners treat course material as

disconnected bits of knowledge.

Deep learning requires that learners look

for patterns and underlying principles.

Learners memorize facts and carry out

procedures without understanding how or

why.


evaluate new ideas and relate them to

conclusions.

Learners have difficulty making sense of

new ideas that are different from what

they encountered in the textbook.


understand the process of dialogue

through which knowledge is created and

can examine the logic of an argument

critically.

Learners treat facts and procedures as

static knowledge, handed down from an

all-knowing authority.


reflect on their own understanding and

their own process of learning.

Learners memorize without reflecting on

the purpose or on their own learning

strategies.

(Sawyer, 2006, p. 4)

Researchers assert that discipline-based approaches to inquiry learning, if

designed well, support students in deep learning (Bradford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000;

Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Sawyer, 2006). In the last section of this article

we document the design structures that teachers need to integrate to ensure that deep

learning occurs.


Research on Inquiry-based Learning

Within the contemporary field of education there, a range of inquiry

approaches to education move away from passive transmission-based pedagogy.

Students undertake real problems, issues, and questions, consult with experts and

authoritative sources, work collaboratively to improve ideas and products, and use

elaborated forms of communication beyond a research paper (i.e., a podcast

explanation, complex display board, or mini- documentary). These approaches to

education include: authentic intellectual work (Newmann, Bryk, & Nagaoka, 2001),

discipline-based inquiry (Galileo Educational Network Association, 2008), project-

based learning (Thomas, 2000; Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999), problem-

based learning (Barrows, 1996); design-based learning (Hmelo, Holton, & Kolodner,

2000), and challenge-based learning (Johnson & Adams, 2011). There is an

accompanying corpus of research evaluating the effectiveness of these approaches to

inquiry. In this section we examine the various ways inquiry-based learning is

defined and the accompanying research evaluating the impact on learning of specific

approaches to inquiry.

Authentic pedagogy, authentic intellectual work, and interactive learning

A number of major studies provide compelling evidence that approaches to

inquiry that include authentic pedagogy and assessments (Newmann, Marks, &

Gamoran, 1996), authentic intellectual work (Newmann, Bryk, & Nagaoka, 2001),

and interactive instruction (Smith, Lee, & Newmann, 2001) dramatically improve

academic achievement.

Newmann et al. (1996) conducted a large study evaluating elementary, middle,

and high schools that had implemented authentic pedagogy and authentic academic

performance approaches in their mathematics and social studies classrooms. They

sought to determine to what extent student achievement improved in schools with

high levels of authentic pedagogy involving higher-order thinking, deep-knowledge

approaches, and connections to the world beyond the classroom. The research team

observed 504 lessons, analyzed 234 assessment tasks, and systematically sampled

student work. The researchers found that environments with high levels of authentic

pedagogy led to higher academic achievement among all students. They concluded

that differences between high- and low-performing students greatly decreased when

students who were normally low-achieving were offered authentic pedagogy and

assessments.

In another study examining 2,128 students in 23 schools in Chicago,

Newmann et al. (2001) found that students instructed in mathematics and writing

organized around more authentic work made higher-than-normal gains on

standardized tests. They defined authentic intellectual work as follows:

Authentic intellectual work involves original application of knowledge and

skills, rather than just routine use of facts and procedures. It also entails

disciplined inquiry into the details of a particular problem and results in a

product or presentation that has meaning or value beyond success in school.

We summarize these distinctive characteristics of authentic intellectual work

as construction of knowledge, through the use of disciplined inquiry, to


produce discourse, products, or performances that have value beyond school.

(pp. 14-15)

To determine the effectiveness of this approach on learning, Newmann et al. (2001)

examined the level of authentic intellectual work in writing and mathematics

assignments in Grades 3, 6, and 8 classrooms. After examining the quality of the

assignments against the quality of student work, they correlated this data with

students’ scores on standardized tests

In another large study, Smith et al. (2001) focused on the impact of forms of

instruction they deemed interactive on learning in reading and mathematics. They

characterized interactive instruction as follows:

In classrooms that emphasize interactive instruction, students discuss ideas

and answers by talking, and sometimes arguing, with each other and with the

teacher. Students work on applications or interpretations of the material to

develop new or deeper understandings of a given topic. Such assignments

may take several days to complete. Students in interactive classrooms are

often encouraged to choose the questions or topics they wish to study within

an instructional unit designed by the teacher. Different students may be

working on different tasks during the same class period. (p. 12)

After examining test scores from over 100,000 students in Grades 2 to 8 along with

surveys from more than 5,000 teachers in 384 Chicago elementary schools, they

found strong empirical evidence that interactive teaching methods were associated

with greater learning and deeper understanding among elementary students in reading

and mathematics.

Discipline-based inquiry

In a similar vein to authentic intellectual work, the Galileo Educational

Network Association (2008) created a Disciplined-Based Inquiry Rubric that outlines

inquiry as a process involving a number of core characteristics:

The inquiry study is authentic in that it emanates from a question, problem,

issue, or exploration that is significant to the disciplines and connects students

to the world beyond the school.

Students are given opportunities to create products or culminating work that

contributes to the building of new knowledge.

Assignments or activities foster deep knowledge and understanding.

Ongoing formative assessment loops are woven into the design of the inquiry

study and involve detailed descriptive feedback.

The study requires students to observe and interact with exemplars and

expertise, including professionals in the field, drawn from the disciplinary

field under study.

Students are given the opportunity to communicate their ideas and insights in

powerful ways through a myriad of media.

Students’ final products of communication through public presentations and

exhibitions


As part of an Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) project, over

the course of a three-year study Friesen (2010) found that engaging students in

disciplinary-based inquiry had a significant positive impact on student achievement

on standardized provincial examinations. Designed and implemented by 26

elementary and secondary schools with 12,800 students in a school district in Alberta,

Friesen (2010) specifically found that the aggregate achievement scores of students in

schools designated as high inquiry schools significantly exceeded provincial norms on

provincial achievement tests. These findings make a strong argument that

disciplinary-based inquiry does not detract from traditional forms of assessment but

actually increases achievement on traditional forms of standardized assessment.

Project-based learning

Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) reviewed three approaches to inquiry-

based learning: project-based learning, problem-based learning, and design-based

instruction. In this section we discuss project-based learning, with overviews of the

other two methods in the sections that follow.

Project-based learning (PBL) organizes learning around the creation of a

presentation or a product that is usually shown to an audience. This could include the

creation of an original play, a video, or an aquarium design judged by local architects

(Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008, p. 40). According to Thomas (2000), PBL

projects involve:

complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve

students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative

activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over

extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations.

(p. 1)

Responding to the question “what must a project have in order to be considered an

instance of PBL?” (p. 3), Thomas argues that the following criteria need to be in

place. He elaborates on each in his review of the literature.

1. PBL projects are focused on questions or problems that “drive” students to

encounter (and struggle with) the central concepts and principles of a

discipline.

2. Projects involve students in a constructive investigation.

3. Projects are student-driven to some significant degree.

4. Projects are realistic, not school-like. (pp. 3-4)

Moursund’s (1999) review of the literature identified authentic content,

authentic assessment, teacher facilitation but not direction, and explicit educational

goals as essential elements of problem-based learning.

There have been a number of studies verifying the impact of project-based

approaches on student learning. Conforming to the four criteria outlined by Thomas

(2000), studies have found an approach called expeditionary learning (EL) to have

significant impact on student achievement. As outlined in a report by the New American

Schools Development Corp (1997), nine of 10 schools that implemented expeditionary


learning models demonstrated significant improvement among their students in

standardized tests reflecting academic achievement. In Dubuque, Iowa, two elementary

schools that implemented the EL program over two years showed gains on the Iowa Test

of Basic Skills from “well below average” to the district average, while a third school

went from “well below average” to “well above the district average.”

In another study examining Grades 4 and 5 students working on a nine-week

project to define and find solutions related to housing shortages, Shepherd (1998)

found that the project-learning students scored significantly higher on a critical-

thinking test in comparison to a control group who did not take part in the inquiry

project. The project-learning students also demonstrated greater confidence in their

learning. In another study in England, Boaler (1997) examined the impact of inquiry-

based learning through a longitudinal study that followed students over three years in

two schools with similar student achievement and income levels. Although the study

found similar gains in learning on basic mathematics procedures, a greater number of

the students involved in project-learning passed the National Exam in year three than

those in the traditional school. These students also developed more flexible and

useful mathematical knowledge.

According to Barrow (2006) the National Research council (1996, 2000)

defined scientific inquiry as a process where students:

1. identify questions and concepts that guide investigations (students formulate

a testable hypothesis and an appropriate design to be used);

2. design and conduct scientific investigations (using major concepts, proper

equipment, safety precautions, use of technologies, etc., where students

must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their

proposed explanations);

3. use appropriate technologies and mathematics to improve investigations and

communications;

4. formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and

evidence (the students’ inquiry should result in an explanation or a model);

5. recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models (reviewing

current scientific understanding and evidence to determine which

explanation of the model is best); and

6. communicate and defend a scientific argument (students should refine their

skills by presenting written and oral presentations that involve responding

appropriately to critical comments from peers). Accomplishing these six

abilities requires K–12 teachers of science to provide multi-investigation

opportunities for students. (Barrow, 2006, p. 268)

According to Barrow (2006) “when students practice inquiry, it helps them

develop their critical thinking abilities and scientific reasoning, while

developing a deeper understanding of science” (p. 269). The National Research

Council (2000) supports the findings of Barrow.


Problem-based learning

Of all the approaches to inquiry, problem-based learning is the most

researched. Originating from a model of learning developed by Barrows (1992) for

medical students, problem-based learning helps students hone their diagnostic skills

through work on ill-structured problems. The problem-based learning model has recently

been adapted for a range of subjects including social studies, science, and mathematics

(Stepien & Gallagher, 1993). Although a number of approaches to learning have adopted

this title, Barrows (1996) argued that its core characteristics include a student-centered

approach to learning, and learning that occurs in small groups under the guidance of a

tutor who acts as a facilitator or guide. Additionally, students engage with authentic

problems before they have received any preparation or study, and may have to find

information on their own to solve the problem. Other authors argue that assessment

and evaluation is most concerned with how the students applied their knowledge to

solve the problem, rather than assessing one correct answer (Segers, Dochy, & De

Corte, 1999).

According to Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008), problem-based learning

involves students working in small groups to “explore meaningful problems,

identifying what they need to know in order to solve the problem, and coming up with

strategies for solutions” (p. 43). Unlike many textbook word problems commonly

found in math, these problems are realistic in that they are ill-structured, offering the

possibility of multiple solutions and methods to solve the problem. Dan Meyer

(2010), a prominent advocate of this approach, used a problem from a textbook that

asked students to find the surface area and volume of a water tank. He highlighted the

difference between traditional approaches to mathematical problem solving and

authentic problem-based approaches to mathematics. In the first instance students

were presented a drawing of a water tank, all the dimensions they needed to solve the

problem were provided, and solving the problem required a series of sequential steps.

In contrast, as shown in a video Meyer (2010) posted online, a more authentic

approach to this problem demonstrated an actual water tank being filled up with a

garden hose. In this instance students were not provided with any of the dimensions

of the water tank. Students had to decide what information was needed to solve the

problem and how they could find the answers. Students were encouraged to discuss

possible solutions with their peers and work with the teacher in a dialogical

environment where the teacher recorded possible hypotheses on the board.

Overall, the impact of problem-based learning has been positive. In a study by

the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992) examining over 700 students

from 11 school districts, students were given three “Jasper adventure projects” over the

course of three weeks. Two of the projects asked students to plan a trip while the other

asked students to create a business plan. The researchers measured the impact of these

projects on learning by giving students a series of tasks after they had finished the three-

week unit. They focused on five key areas that included: basic math concepts, word

problems, planning capabilities, attitudes, and teacher feedback. The researchers reported

the largest gains in planning capabilities, word problem performance, and attitudes

towards mathematics. Students who had been exposed to the Jasper problems showed

positive gains in all of the areas in relation to their peers in a control group who did not


engage in the projects. Students involved in the Jasper projects also had a more positive

attitude towards their learning. Boaler (1997) also found that problem-based learning

increased student engagement in a study that found students’ experiences with a project

approach to mathematics led to less anxiety towards mathematics, a greater willingness to

see mathematics as relevant to everyday life, and increased willingness to approach

mathematical challenges with a positive attitude.

In another study, Gallagher, Stepien, and Rosenthal (1992) created a problem-

based course for high achieving high school students in mathematics and science. In this

case problem-based instruction emphasizes presenting students with ill structured

problems around the meaning and impact of contemporary scientific issues (i.e., the effect

of electromagnetic fields on childhood leukemia, the health care system). Results from

the study showed significant changes in students’ ability to problem solve as reflected in a

much stronger ability among students in the problem-based class to describe a process for

finding a solution to an ill-defined problem that they had never encountered. This

conclusion was reached through comparing gains made in relation to a pretest and

posttest for the 78 students involved in the problem-based course. The researchers then

compared these results to a comparison group that did not participate in the problem-

based learning course.

In a meta-study, Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, and Gijbels (2003)

examined 43 peer-reviewed empirical studies on problem-based learning undertaken

in classrooms. They found that problem-based learning has a strong positive effect on

students’ skills. This was shown through both a vote count, as well as by the

combined effect size. The one area where there was a tendency towards a negative

result was related to the effect of problem-based learning on student knowledge.

However, they noted that this result was greatly influenced by two studies. For

knowledge-related outcomes their results suggest that the impact on learning increases

when students engage in problem-based learning for a second time.

In a study Barron et al, (1998) also investigated sixth-grade students,

presenting one class with a problem-solving planning activity prior to beginning their

projects, while in another class students were not offered the framing problem-solving

task. Their results indicated that students in the problem-solving classroom

conditions were better able to apply the targeted math concepts and had higher

achievement than those without these conditions in place.

Overall, the results of studies examining the efficacy of problem-based

learning have been mixed. However, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008)

documented a number of studies that suggest this approach is effective “in supporting

flexible problem solving, reasoning skills, and generating accurate hypotheses and

coherent explanations” (p. 45). For example, a quasi-experimental study by Hmelo

(1998) found that students that engaged in problem-based learning generated more

accurate hypotheses and more coherent explanations. Similarly, Williams, Hemstreet,

Liu, and Smith (1998) found that this approach fostered greater gains in conceptual

understanding in science.

Design-based learning

In design-based learning students are asked to design and create an artefact

that requires them to apply knowledge and principles drawn from a particular


discipline (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). Often found in the domains of

technology, art, engineering, and architecture, students are asked to generate ideas,

create prototypes, and test their creations. Examples of this kind of work include the

FIRST Robotics Competition (2009) where students build a remote-controlled robot

from a standard kit of 100 parts. Professional engineers work alongside the students,

explaining the function of the various parts and providing feedback on the emerging

designs. Due to the complexity of this kind of work, students are generally

encouraged to work in small groups and take on specialist roles.

There have been few studies using control groups examining the effectiveness

of design-based practices on student learning. However, Hmelo, Holton, and

Kolodner (2000) found Grade 6 students who designed a set of artificial lungs and

built a partially-working model of the respiratory system made great gains in viewing

the respiratory system more systemically. Overall, the students gained a deeper

understanding of the structures and functions of the system than a control group.

Challenged-based learning

The Apple Education-sponsored Challenged Based Learning model (Johnson

& Adams, 2011) offers a step-by-step approach to inquiry. According to their website

Challenged Based Learning (2013) provides “an engaging multidisciplinary approach

to teaching and learning that encourages learners to leverage the technology they use

in their daily lives to solve real-world problems” (p. 1). Students work

collaboratively with their peers and use social networking platforms to connect with

experts in their communities and around the world. Within this model of inquiry

students identify a problem or challenge in the world, take action, and then share their

experiences with a wider audience.

Although there is no peer-reviewed research of the impact of this approach to

inquiry on learning, Johnson and Adams (2011) undertook two field-based studies on

the efficacy of this approach. Here is a summary of their findings, which relied

largely on student and teacher surveys:

CBL builds 21st Century Skills. Ninety percent of teachers reported that 12

key skill areas improved significantly, including Leadership, Creativity, Media

Literacy, Problem Solving, Critical Thinking, Flexibility, and Adaptability.

Seventy percent of teachers reported some improvement in every area of the

21st Century Skills.

CBL engages students in learning. Over three-quarters of students, across

every age group, felt that they had learned more than what was required of

them, were part of solving a big problem, and worked harder than they

normally do.

Teachers find CBL effective in engaging students and helping them master the

material — and a good use of their limited time. Over 90% of teachers, across

every grade level, felt that CBL was a good use of their limited time and

would use it again. Over three-quarters of teachers, again across every grade

level, felt that their students mastered the expected material and that their

overall engagement increased.


While broadly applicable across the range of learning environments, CBL is

ideally suited to teaching in a technologically rich environment. CBL works

in a variety of settings, from those with shared access to computers and the

Internet, to those with 24/7 Internet access via a combination of school and

home-based devices, to fully one-to-one 24/7 classrooms. The study found

that today’s teachers and students already have the computer and Internet

skills needed to engage with CBL effectively. (p. 2)

Inquiry-based teaching

In synthesis of two meta-analysis of “inquiry-based teaching” Hattie (2009, p.

208) found that this approach resulted in improved student performance in a number

of areas. Noting that much of the research on inquiry-based teaching has happened in

science, Hattie defines this approach as follows:

Inquiry-based teaching is the art of developing challenging situations in which

students are asked to observe and question phenomena; pose explanations of

what they observe; devise and conduct experiments in which data are collected

to support or contradict their theories; analyze data; draw conclusions from

experimental data; design and build models; or any combination of these. (p.

208)

Of note inquiry-based teaching increased the amount of time students spent in labs,

decreased teacher-led discussions in classrooms, and also improved critical thinking

(as cited in Hattie, Brederman, 1983). Although Shymansky, Hedges, and

Woodsworth (1990) found that this approach helped students gain greater

competencies in scientific process, the effects were less great on content. Overall,

these studies suggest that inquiry-based teaching has positive effects; however, Hattie

does not rank these effects on learning as dramatic. One of the drawbacks to Hattie’s

analysis is that the research he is drawing from is twenty-five to thirty years old.

Further, it is not clear if the way this approach was taken up in the classroom was

more akin to minimally guided discovery learning, which has limited impact on

student achievement.

Other Approaches

The literature related to inquiry-based learning beyond the approaches

outlined above reveals a number of orientations involving a step-by-step process to

engage students in inquiry. This includes work in Australia such as the Integrating

Socially Model of inquiry (Hamston & Murdoch, 1996) and the TELSTAR model of

inquiry (Department of Education, Queensland, 1994a). Common to all these

orientations is a universal schematic that could be applied to a range of subject areas

where students identify a problem or topic, gather information, evaluate the findings,

and list possible actions and implications of their research. For example, the

following steps are included in the TELSTAR model of inquiry (DEQ, 1994b):

What is the topic?

Why should we study this topic?

How do we feel about this topic?


Who else feels strongly about this topic?

What do we want to find out?

How might we sort our information

What conclusions can we draw?

How do we feel about this topic now?

How could the investigation be improved? (p. 7)

These frameworks from the 1990’s have been augmented by more recent work

that offers a schematic template to guide inquiry, including Alberta Learning’s Focus

on Inquiry (2004). There is limited peer-reviewed research examining the

effectiveness of these approaches, which differ from the approaches we have been

examining above in that they are universal and not necessarily situated in a particular

discipline.

Making inquiry-based learning count

Not just doing for the sake of doing

Not all the research on specific approaches to inquiry learning has been

positive. It is important to respond to detractors of these approaches to learning that

often portray inquiry as unstructured, leading to what Barron called “doing for the

sake of doing” (as cited in Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008, p. 12). In this vein,

several researchers found that direct instruction is preferable to inquiry (Kirschner,

Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Klahr & Nigam, 2004). Kirschner et al. (2006) found that

approaches to instruction including project-based learning, inquiry learning, and

discovery learning that rely on “minimally guided instruction” are ineffective and

inefficient ways to teach. They defined minimally-guided instruction as an approach

in which “learners, rather than being presented with essential information, must

discover or construct essential information for themselves” (p. 1). In response to this

study, Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007) argued that the methodology

Kirschner et al. used was flawed because they conflated the unguided nature of

discovery learning with project-based learning and inquiry-based learning, which are

much more structured. In making this assertion Hmelo-Silver et al. acknowledged the

shortcomings of minimally-guided instruction that can occur in discovery learning.

By contrast, they presented a large body of research that suggests that both project-

based learning and inquiry-based learning are powerful and effective models for

fostering deep understanding among students.

Klahr and Nigam (2004) claimed that direct instruction, understood as a

traditional lecture-based approach to learning, is preferable to discovery-based

learning in terms of developing students’ basic knowledge of a domain. They

examined two groups of Grade 6 students who were asked to design experiments to

evaluate the variables associated with the speed of a ball travelling down a ramp.

Klahr and Nigam were interested in the students’ understanding of experimental

design and ability to control for “confounding variables” (p. 11). In one class students

were given direct instruction on the importance of not confounding variables in

experiments while in the other students were simply asked to design the experiment

on their own. Darling-Hammond (2008) disputed the findings of this study:

“[A]lthough the researchers’ conclusions suggested that the direct instruction


approach yielded better learning, they failed to acknowledge that this approach

included both a great deal of experimentation and some direct instruction” (p. 16).

These studies do not prove that inquiry-based approaches are not effective but

they do support the conclusion that inquiry requires certain instructional supports.

Roth (2006) (as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2008) found that deeper understanding of

engineering principles does not come from asking students to build a bridge or a

tower. Barron et al. (1998) cited an unpublished doctoral dissertation by Petrosino

(1998) along with a study by Lamon et al. (1996) who found that although student

engagement levels increased when students built rockets, they showed no parallel

growth in learning about the principles of flight. A later iteration of the same project

introduced a new task where students had to determine the variables related to how far

a rocket would travel. In this case, Lamon et al. found a dramatic increase in

students’ conceptual knowledge of the principles of flight.

How teachers can maximize the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning

Discipline-based approaches to inquiry should not be confused with forms of

inquiry calling for minimally-guided instruction (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006),

where students are given little guidance or support in their learning. As Friesen

(2012) notes, inquiry involves a spirit of investigation always linked to a particular

topic or field of study. Consequently, inquiry moves away from a purely teacher- or

student-centered approach to a form of learning that takes its cue from what the field

of study requires of those coming to know it. As they pose guiding questions,

problems, or tasks that professionals in the field would recognize as important,

students and teachers work and learn from experts to develop responses and

performances of learning that are meaningful, sophisticated, and powerful.

Scaffolding. To support students in this process Darling-Hammond (2008)

and Barron et al. (1998) argued that scaffolding activities, frequent opportunities for

formative assessment, as well as powerful guiding questions are vitally important for

ensuring inquiry-based projects to lead to deep understanding. Although there is

widespread disagreement in the field as to what constitutes a scaffolding activity, in

general it involves tools, strategies, and guides to support students in gaining levels of

achievement that would not be otherwise possible. Simons and Klein (2006) argued

that an effective scaffold involves bracketing out elements of a task initially beyond

the learner’s capability in a way that allows the learner to concentrate upon and

complete only those elements that are within their range of competence. Similarly,

Pea (2004) argued that scaffolds involve a range of instructional measures including

“constraining efforts, focusing attention on relevant features to increase the likelihood

of the learner’s effective action, and modeling advanced solutions or approaches” (p.

446). Research suggests that scaffolding activities positively impact problem solving

(Cho & Jonassen, 2002), reflection (Davis & Linn, 2000), research assistance

(Brinkerhoff & Glazewski, 2004), concept integration (Davis & Linn, 2000), and

knowledge acquisition (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997).

Formative assessment. Along with scaffolding, a large body of research

concludes that the learning gains engendered by formative assessment were amongst

the largest ever reported among any educational interventions (Bransford, Brown, &

Cocking, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2008; Hattie, 2009; Heritage, 2010). This same


body of research found that these learning gains are most dramatic with low-achieving

students. Formative assessment must be embedded in the cycle of learning so that

students receive ongoing descriptive feedback to improve the quality of their work

and understanding. Heritage’s (2010) review of the literature asserted that feedback

designed to improve learning is most effective “when it is focused on the task and

provides the student with suggestions, hints, or cues, rather than offered in the form of

praise or comments about performance” (p. 5). Students should be provided

opportunities for self-assessment based on clear assessment criteria. Teachers can

then use the knowledge gained from this process to adjust their teaching to foster the

desired competencies.

Powerful, critical, and essential questions. Barron et al. (1998) noted that

well-designed inquiry projects should be organized around powerful driving questions

that make clear connections between activities “and the underlying conceptual

knowledge that one might hope to foster” (p. 274). Guiding questions help focus the

inquiry around enabling constraints. A powerful inquiry question should be

significant to the discipline and connect students to the world beyond the school while

also honouring the outcomes within the program of study.

Teachers have a number of sources of support in designing inquiry projects. Scott

and Abbott (2012) outlined a growing body of literature that promotes purposeful

inquiry strategies and frameworks that enrich content understanding and promote the

apprehension of disciplinary means and processes (Case 2005; den Heyer 2009;

Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Key to these approaches is a shift away from

predominantly information-transmission pedagogies to inquiry oriented around

critical questions (Case, 2005) and essential questions (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

These inquiry strategies all seek to foster subject-matter understanding and

impart disciplinary means and processes. However, they differ in their approach and

pedagogical focus. Critical questions allow students to structure their inquiry to

demonstrate their understanding of ideas, concepts, and content in the curriculum.

For Case and Wright (1997), an inquiry question becomes a critical question if it

requires students to make a reasoned judgment among options, use criteria to make

that judgment, and connect to outcomes in the core of the curriculum. Examples of

critical questions aligned to the Alberta Grade 8 social studies program of study

include:

What is the best location for a successful trading city in Renaissance Europe?

Rank selected Italian city-states in order of their influence in shaping a

Renaissance worldview (Alberta Education, 2012).

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) promoted subject-matter understanding through

essential questions that guide units around big ideas that emerge from the content. A

question is an essential question if it lies “at the heart of a subject or curriculum (as

opposed to being either trivial or leading), and [promotes] inquiry and uncoverage of

a subject” (p. 342). Examples of essential questions include:

To what extent do we need checks and balances on government power?

What are the common factors in the rise and fall of powerful nations?

Is the scientific method more like a tollway without any exits or an


interstate highway with many exits?

How is thinking algebraically different from thinking arithmetically?

School jurisdictions in Alberta have invested significant time, money, and

professional development support for teachers to integrate these inquiry models into

their practice. For example, the critical thinking framework developed by Case

(2005) forms the central organizing framework of the online support resources for

curriculum and instruction for the social studies program. Similarly, school districts

throughout Alberta continue to provide ongoing professional development

opportunities to aid teachers wishing to adopt Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005)

Understanding by Design and essential question framework into their teaching.

Throughline questioning. A final approach to inquiry that has yet to gain

traction in Alberta is a throughline questioning method refined by den Heyer (2009) at

the University of Alberta. Throughline questions are the “questions the content of our

courses should help students address” (p. 31). This approach is rooted in a pedagogic

strategy developed by Harvard Project Zero (Active Learning Practice for Schools

Project Zero, 2001) and is similar to Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) essential

questions. Den Heyer’s (2005, 2009) throughline approach uses questions as a key

pedagogic organizer, but departs from the essential questions approach by structuring

the inquiry around particular issues of concern in the communities in which students

live.

By encouraging students and teachers to respond to questions that call for

ethical engagement, den Heyer’s (2009) throughline notion seeks to interconnect

program goals, objectives, and specific outcomes for lessons, units, and courses by

asking relevant and provocative questions about issues of concern that meaningfully

connect students with the world in which they live. Further, the throughline approach

helps students and teachers better understand how current conditions came to be.

They explore the ways in which current sense-making practices constrain individual

and collective agency to imagine and shape the future. Examples of throughline

questions relevant to inquiry-based learning in Alberta generated by Abbott (Scott &

Abbott 2012) include:

In what ways do current conceptions of teaching and learning separate the

classroom from the world?

How can our teaching help students better understand the world they live in

and better appreciate their capacities for being agents of change?

Conclusion

A diverse and wide body of research suggests that inquiry-based approaches to

learning positively impact students’ ability to understand core concepts and

procedures. Inquiry also creates a more engaging learning environment. As outlined

by the Galileo Educational Network (2008) rubric to guide inquiry and supported by a

large body of research, a constellation of processes need to be in place to maximize

the impact of inquiry-based education. These elements include scaffolding activities,

formative feedback loops, and the adoption of powerful questioning strategies to

guide the learning process.



References

Active Learning Practice for Schools Project Zero. (2001). Harvard project zero.

Retrieved from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/

Alberta Education. (2012). Program of studies: Social studies, kindergarten to grade

12. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education. (2007). Program of studies: Social studies, kindergarten to

grade 12. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education. (2007). Program of studies: Mathematics, kindergarten to

grade 12. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education. (2006). Program of studies: Science grades 7–8–9.

Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education. (2012). Learn Alberta. Retrieved from

http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/ssocirm/html/summariesoftheccs/summarie

softheccs_grade_eight.htm; April 13, 2012

Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans.

Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.

Amaral, O., Garrison, L. & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase

achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research

Journal, 26(2), 213-239.

Barron, B., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J.,

& The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with

understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning.

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A

review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Powerful

Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding (pp. 11-70). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barrow, L. (2006). A brief history of inquiry-From Dewey to Standards. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 17, 265-78.

Barrows, H. (1992). The tutorial process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University

School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief

overview. In L. Wilkerson & H. Gilselaers (eds.), Bringing problem-based

learning to higher education: Theory and practice. San Franscisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Inc.

Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics; Teaching styles, sex, and


settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Brinkerhoff, J. & Glazewski, K. (2004). Support of expert and novice teachers within

a technology enhanced problem-based learning unit: A case study.

International Journal of Learning Technology 1: 219–230.

Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2),

45-49.

Case, R, &Wright, T. (1997). “Taking Seriously the Teaching of Critical Thinking.”

In The Canadian Anthology of Social Studies, ed R Case and P Clark, 179–93.

Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press.

Challenged Based Learning. (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.challengebasedlearning.org/pages/welcome

Cho, K. & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on

argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and

Development 50(3): 5–22.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). Anchored instruction in

science and mathematics: Theoretical basis, developmental projects, and initial

research findings. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of

Science, cognitive psychology, and edcuational theory and practice (pp. 244-

273). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Introduction: Teaching and learning for understanding.

Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding (pp. 1-

9). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, E. & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding studentsÕ knowledge integration: Prompts

for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22: 819–837.

Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, (2000). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in

complex times. New York, NY: Routledge.

Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in

complex times. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

den Heyer, K. (2005). To what questions are schools answers? And what of our

courses? Animating throughline questions to promote students’ questionabilities.

Canadian Social Studies, 39(2), 1-12.

den Heyer, K. (2009). Implicated and called upon: Challenging an educated position

of self, others, knowledge and knowing as things to acquire. Critical Literacy:

Theories and Practices, 3(1), 26-36.

http://www.challengebasedlearning.org/pages/welcome


Department of Education, Queensland. (1994a). Social Investigators: An Approach to

Active and Informed Citizenship for Years 8-10, Brisbane.

Department of Education, Queensland. (1994b). Inquiry Approaches in Primary

Studies of Society and Environment Key Learning Area, Brisbane.

Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31, 121–127.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of

problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533-

568.

FIRST Robotics Competition (2009). FIRST Robotics 2009 game animatio. Retrieved

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np2deG_RWg0

Friesen, S. (2009). Inquiry-based learning: Three Alberta schools that know what it

takes. Education Canada, 49(5), 8-14.

Friesen, S. (2010). Uncomfortable bedfellows: Discipline-based inquiry and

standardized examinations. Teacher Librarian, 37(6).

Friesen, S. (2012). Inquiry-based learning. Unpublished paper, University of Calgary.

Friesen, S. & Jardine, D. (2009). 21st century learning and learners. Calgary, AB:

Galileo Educational Network. Retrieved from

http://education.alberta.ca/media/1087278/wncp%2021st%20cent%20learning

%20(2).pdf

Friesen, S. & Lock, J. (2010). High performing districts in the application of 21st

century learning technologies: Review of the research. Edmonton, AB:

College of Alberta School Superintendents.

Gallagher, S., Stepien, W., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based

learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195-200.

Galileo Educational Network Association (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/rubric.pdf

Hamston, J. and Murdoch, K. (1996). Integrating Socially: Planning Units of Work

for Social Education, Eleanor Curtin, Melbourne.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to

achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hmelo, C. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of

cognitive skill in medicine. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 173–208.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np2deG_RWg0

http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/rubric.pdf


Hmelo, C., Holton, D., Kolodner, J. (2000). Designing to learn about complex

systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in

problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and

Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99– 107.

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems:

Are we losing an opportunity. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research

on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Khan Academy (2013). Learn almost anything for free. Retrieved from

http://www.khanacademy.org/

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist,

discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.

Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science

instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological

Science, 15, 661–667.

Lamon, M., Secules, T., Petrosino, T., Hackett, R., Bransford, J., & Goldman, S.

(1996). Schools for thought: Overview of the international project and lessons

learned from one of the sites. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations

in learning: New environments for education (pp. 243-288). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2008). Back to the Basics of Teaching

Learning: Thinking the World Together, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.

Johnson, L. & Adams, S., (2011). Challenge Based Learning: The Report from the

Implementation Project. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Meyer, D (2010). Dan Meyer: Math curriculum makeover. Retrieved from:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene,

OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

National Center for History in the Schools. (Ed.). (1996). National standards for

history. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education

standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html


New American Schools Development Corporation. (1997). Working towards

excellence: Results from schools implementing New American Schools

designs. Washington, DC: Author.

Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and

standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago, IL: Consortium on

Chicago School Research.

Newmann, F., Marks, H., and Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student

performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280-312.

OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development). (2002).

Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. Paris, FR: The

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005). The

selection and definition of key competencies: Executive summary. Paris, FR:

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007).

Understanding the brain: The birth of a learning science. Paris, FR: The

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2008).

Innovating to learn: Learning to innovate. Paris, FR: The Organization of

Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development). (2009). Creating

effective teaching and learning environments: First results from Talis. Paris,

FR: Author.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the

computer. New York: Basic Books.

Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related

theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.

Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can

transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Roehler, L. & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist

classrooms. In K. Hogan and M. Pressley, (eds), Scaffolding Student

Learning: Instructional Approaches and Issues, Brookline: Cambridge, MA.

Rosenstock, L. (2011). High Tech High. Retrieved from: https://vimeo.com/10000408

Ross, V. (2003). The Socratic method: What it is and how to use it in the classroom.

Standford University Newsletter on Teaching, 13(1), 1-4.

Sawyer, K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York,


NY: Cambridge University Press.

Scott, D., & Abbot, L. (2012). Trying to make the mission statements of social studies

curriculum inhabit my social studies pedagogy and vice versa. One World in

Dialogue Journal, 2(1), 8-18.

Segers, M., Dochy, F. & De Corte, E. (1999). Assessment practices and students’

knowledge profiles in a problem-based curriculum. Learning Environments

Research: An International Journal, 2, 191-213.

Shepherd, H. (1998). The probe method: A problem-based learning model's effect on

critical thinking skills of fourth- and fifth-grade social studies students.

Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social

Sciences, September 1988, 59 (3-A), p. 0779.

Shymansky, J., Hedges, L., and Woodworth, G. (1990). A Reassessment of the

Effects of Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the 60’s on Student

Performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, (2), 127-144.

Simons, K. & Klein, J. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement

levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41-

72.

Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newman, F. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago

elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research,

University of Chicago.

Stepien, W. & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets.

Educational Leadership, 51, 25-28.

Thomas, J. W. & Mergendoller, J. R. (2000). Managing project-based learning:

Principles from the field. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., and Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based

learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The

Buck Institute for Education.

Western and Northern Canada Protocol (WNCP), (2011). Guiding Principles for

WNCP curriculum framework project. Retrieved from

http://www.wncp.ca/media/49521/protocol.pdf

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Williams, D., Hemstreet, S., Liu, M., & Smith, V. (1998). Examining how middle

schools students use problem-based learning software. Proceedings of the ED-

MEDIA/ED-Telecom 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and

Hypermedia, Frieburg, Germany. (ED 428 738).

Inquiry-Based Learning: A Review of the Research Literature

Documents